Garfias, Christopher
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 261
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Garfias was charged with aggravated robbery by threat (first-degree) and aggravated assault causing bodily injury (second-degree) and convicted on both counts by a jury.
- The trial court sentenced Garfias to 60 years for aggravated robbery and life for aggravated assault, with sentences running concurrently.
- Garfias appealed alleging a Double Jeopardy Clause violation due to multiple punishments for the same conduct.
- The Second Court of Appeals vacated the aggravated robbery conviction, applying a Blockburger-based same-elements test and concluding no clear double-jeopardy violation.
- The Texas Court granted discretionary review and reversed, reinstating the aggravated-robbery conviction.
- The majority holds that double jeopardy is not violated and the court of appeals erred in vacating the aggravated-robbery conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple punishments violate double jeopardy | Garfias argues multiple punishments for the same conduct are barred | State contends legislative intent allows separate punishments | No double-jeopardy violation; aggravated robbery conviction reinstated |
| Whether Blockburger with Ervin factors supports the result | Garfias relies on Blockburger as dispositive | State argues Ervin factors support multi-punishment | Ervin factors support allowing multiple punishments; not precluded by Blockburger alone |
| Whether the unit of prosecution indicates legislative intent to allow multiple punishments | Garfias argues offenses share gravamen and should merge | State argues gravamen differs and unit of prosecution supports separate punishments | Legislature intended to allow multiple punishments; units of prosecution differ for the two offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (Blockburger test as starting point for double-jeopardy analysis)
- Ervin v. State, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (non-exhaustive Ervin factors for multi-punishment intents)
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (gravamen-focused analysis for double jeopardy)
- Lopez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (whether steps in a single transaction share gravamen; guide to multi-punishments)
- Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (discussion of concurrent vs consecutive sentencing; relevance to double jeopardy)
- Hawkins ex parte, 6 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (unit-of-prosecution considerations in robbery-related offenses)
- Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (focus of gravamen in double-jeopardy analysis; cognate pleadings)
- Denton, 399 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (aggravated assault as lesser-included in aggravated robbery in some contexts)
- Loving v. State, 401 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Ervin-related analysis and multi-offense guidance)